Christian Literature in Chinese Contexts

Christian Literature in Chinese Contexts John T. P. Lai www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Edited by Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Religions Christian Literature in Chinese Contexts Christian Literature in Chinese Contexts Special Issue Editor John T. P. Lai MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editor John T. P. Lai Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Religions (ISSN 2077-1444) in 2019 (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special issues/ Christian Literature). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year , Article Number , Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03921-842-4 (Pbk) ISBN 978-3-03921-843-1 (PDF) Cover image courtesy of the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford. c © 2019 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. Contents About the Special Issue Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Preface to ”Christian Literature in Chinese Contexts” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chin Ken-pa Jingjiao under the Lenses of Chinese Political Theology Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 551, doi:10.3390/rel10100551 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sher-Shiueh Li Rhetorica and Exemplum : The Genesis of Christian Literature in Late Imperial China Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 465, doi:10.3390/rel10080465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Sophie Ling-chia Wei Sheng Ren in the Figurists’ Reinterpretation of the Yijing Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 553, doi:10.3390/rel10100553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 John T. P. Lai and Jochebed Hin Ming Wu The Catholic Yijing : L ̈ u Liben’s Passion Narratives in the Context of the Qing Prohibition of Christianity Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 416, doi:10.3390/rel10070416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Wai Luen Kwok Theology of Religions and Intertextuality: A Case Study of Christian–Confucian and Islamic–Confucian Dialogue in the Early 20th-Century China Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 417, doi:10.3390/rel10070417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Dadui Yao Shakespeare in Chinese as Christian Literature: Isaac Mason and Ha Zhidao’s Translation of Tales from Shakespeare Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 452, doi:10.3390/rel10080452 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Zhixi Wang The Gospel According to Marxism: Zhu Weizhi and the Making of Jesus the Proletarian (1950) Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 535, doi:10.3390/rel10090535 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Chlo ̈ e Starr A New Stream of Spiritual Literature: Bei Cun’s The Baptizing River Reprinted from: Religions 2019 , 10 , 413, doi:10.3390/rel10070413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 v About the Special Issue Editor John T. P. Lai Having received his Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford (2005), John T. P. Lai is currently Associate Professor at the Department of Cultural and Religious Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and was Visiting Scholar of the Harvard-Yenching Institute (2015–2016). His research interests revolve around the interdisciplinary study of religion, literature, and translation, with a focus on Chinese Christian literature. He has published four monographs: Negotiating Religious Gaps: The Enterprise of Translating Christian Tracts by Protestant Missionaries in Nineteenth-Century China (2012); The Afterlife of a Classic: A Critical Study of the Late-Qing Chinese Translations of The Pilgrim’s Progress (in Chinese) (2012); Attuning the Gospel: Chinese Christian Novels of the Late Qing Period (in Chinese) (2017); Literary Representations of Christianity in Late Qing and Republican China (2019). He obtained the “Research Excellence Award” (2011) and “The Faculty of Arts Outstanding Teaching Award” (for six times) from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has been awarded the “General Research Fund” from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council for four times. vii Preface to ”Christian Literature in Chinese Contexts” Christianity in China has a history dating back to the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE), when Allopen—the first Nestorian missionary—arrived there in 635. In the late sixteenth century, Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) together with other Jesuit missionaries commenced the Catholic missions to China. Protestant Christianity in China began with Robert Morrison (1782–1834), of London Missionary Society, who first set foot in Canton in 1807. Over the centuries, the Western missionaries and Chinese believers were engaged in the enterprise of the translation, publication, and distribution of a large corpus of Christian literature in Chinese. Apart from the direct reading of the Chinese translations of the Bible, the biblical stories and messages were more widely received among the Chinese audiences in a variety of modes, including hearing biblical stories paraphrased or recapitulated in sermons, singing of hymns and making use of liturgical texts, reciting catechisms and trimetrical primers, consulting Bible dictionaries and commentaries, reading or hearing the Christian novels read aloud, among others. While the extensive distribution of Chinese publications facilitated the propagation of Christianity, the Christian messages have been subtly re-presented, re-appropriated, and transformed by these works of Chinese Christian literature. This Special Issue entitled “Christian Literature in Chinese Contexts” examines the multifarious dimensions of the production, translation, circulation, and reception of Christian literature (with “Christian” and “literature” in their broadest sense) against the cultural and sociopolitical contexts from the Tang period to modern China. The eight articles collected in this volume address an array of fascinating topics, including the political theology of Jingjiao Christianity in Tang China (by Chin Ken-pa); the introduction of European rhetoric to China during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties (by Sher-Shiueh Li); the Catholic reinterpretations of the Yijing (Classic of Changes) by both the Jesuit missionaries (by Sophie Ling-chia Wei) and Chinese believers (by John T. P. Lai and Jochebed Hin Ming Wu) in the Qing period; the intertextual theology of religions from the perspective of early 20th century Chinese religious periodicals (by Wai Luen Kwok); the missionary translation of Shakespeare as a piece of Chinese Christian literature (by Dadui Yao); the integration of Marxism into the biblical narratives of the life of Jesus (by Zhixi Wang); and the emergence of “spiritual writing” in contemporary Chinese literature (by Chlo ̈ e Starr). John T. P. Lai Special Issue Editor ix religions Article Jingjiao under the Lenses of Chinese Political Theology Chin Ken-pa Department of Philosophy, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City 24205, Taiwan; kenpa.mnf@gmail.com Received: 28 May 2019; Accepted: 16 September 2019; Published: 26 September 2019 Abstract: Conflict between religion and state politics is a persistent phenomenon in human history. Hence it is not surprising that the propagation of Christianity often faces the challenge of “political theology”. When the Church of the East monk Aluoben reached China in 635 during the reign of Emperor Tang Taizong, he received the favorable invitation of the emperor to translate Christian sacred texts for the collections of Tang Imperial Library. This marks the beginning of Jingjiao ( 景教 ) mission in China. In historiographical sense, China has always been a political domineering society where the role of religion is subservient and secondary. A school of scholarship in Jingjiao studies holds that the fall of Jingjiao in China is the obvious result of its over-involvement in local politics. The flaw of such an assumption is the overlooking of the fact that in the Tang context, it is impossible for any religious establishments to avoid getting in touch with the Tang government. In the light of this notion, this article attempts to approach this issue from the perspective of “political theology” and argues that instead of over-involvement, it is rather the clashing of “ideologies” between the Jingjiao establishment and the ever-changing Tang court’s policies towards foreigners and religious bodies that caused the downfall of Jingjiao Christianity in China. This article will posit its argument based on the analysis of the Chinese Jingjiao canonical texts, especially the Xian Stele, and takes this as a point of departure to observe the political dynamics between Jingjiao and Tang court. The finding of this paper does show that the intellectual history of Chinese Christianity is in a sense a comprehensive history of “political theology”. Keywords: Xian Stele; Jingjiao Christianity; Tang Dynasty; Political Theology; politics-religion relationship 1. Introduction Conflict between religion and politics is a persistent phenomenon in history. In an introductory preface to Chen Yuan’s ( 陳垣 1880–1971) Mingji Dianqian Fojiao kao 明季滇黔佛教考 [Late Ming Period Buddhism in Yungui Region], the prominent Chinese historian Chen Yinke ( 陳寅恪 1890–1969) claims: “General opinion has it that politics and religion are two di ff erent entities and should not be treated together. However, historical events suggest the opposite. Politics and religion are in indeed closely related. . . . When the Ming Dynasty fell, most of its literati royalists turned into avid Buddhist devotees in order not to serve the new dynasty. . . . In this context, religious history is nonetheless a political history” 1 (Chen 2002, pp. 235–36). In other words, Chen Yinke recognizes that Chen Yuan’s historical survey on the propagation of Buddhism during the late Ming period also reflects the political condition of the Ming Dynasty. The author Chen Yuan himself wrote a postscript that rea ffi rmed Chen Yinke’s statement when the book was reprinted in 1957 (Chen 2002, p. 480). 2 1 Unless otherwise mentioned, all translation from the Chinese text in this article is by the author. 2 In this postscript, Chen Yuan has subtly made a critical allusion to the political-religion climate of his days. Religions 2019 , 10 , 551; doi:10.3390 / rel10100551 www.mdpi.com / journal / religions 1 Religions 2019 , 10 , 551 A school of scholarship in Jingjiao ( 景教 ) 3 studies considers that the downfall of the Jingjiao-church in Tang China is the obvious result of its over-involvement in local politics. 4 However, the flaw of this assumption lies in the fact that it is not possible for Jingjiao, as a religious establishment, to avoid any interactions with the Tang court. In light of this notion, this article adopts Chen Yinke’s view aforementioned and approaches the question of Jingjiao’s downfall from the perspective of “political theology” instead. This paper argues that instead of over-involvement, it is rather the clashing of “ideologies” between the Jingjiao establishment and the ever-changing Tang court’s policies towards foreigners that has caused the downfall of Jingjiao in Tang China. In light of Chinese historiography, Chinese dynasties throughout the ages have always been a political domineering structure where the role of religion is subservient and secondary. When the Jingjiao-church first established itself in Tang China, o ffi cial approval of settlement and royal patronage from the Tang imperial court were both crucial. From the moment Alouben and his missionary group entered Chang’an, they were well aware of the Tang court’s “political theology”. This awareness was explicitly but subtly revealed in Jingjiao’s written records such as Xian Stele. The Jingjiao establishment is often recognized as the beginning of the “political theology” awareness in the propagation history of Sino-Christianity. As one of the “three yi / barbarian religions” 三夷教 in the Tang Dynasty, the Church was inevitably subjected to the domineering cultural hegemony of the Tang court. According to Liu He, the concept of yi in viewing all foreigners as barbarian is “a Chinese classical theory of sovereignty imagination” (Liu 2004, p. 72). Liu argues that in classical Chinese view, this concept serves as an important figurative metaphor in the sovereign discourse of China imperial past viewing themselves as the center in the matter of both national administration and foreign relationships. As a discourse, yi serves the function of naming the boundaries of the imperial sovereign rule on the other’s territories (Ibid.). In the Chinese context, the idea of sovereignty is closely associated with the view of tianxia ( 天下 , literally “under heaven”). This is the figurative imagination of Chinese past dynasties which eventually turns into an imperial political discourse. In other words, in the traditional Chinese view, sovereignty is as much a matter of external recognition as one of domestic legitimacy, and it is the quest for such recognition that Chinese dynasties of the past often maintained a strict policy of huayi zhi bian ( 華夷之辨 , distinction of Chinese against the foreign) in the coercion of foreigners. Segregating the Chinese from the barbaric foreigners is a projection of the classical Chinese imperial desire to dominate the others (Ibid., pp. 72–75). Hence, when Jingjiao first established itself in China, the institution was subjected to this domineering ideology of the Tang court. The ego-centric world view of tianxia is the domineering political ideology that has shaped the foreign policies of ancient China towards its neighboring countries and other nationalities throughout the ages. Ancient imperial China referred to itself as Zhongguo ( 中國 , the Centre State) and related to others as a suzerain would treat his vassals. Therefore, the demanding of tributes from the neighboring “barbarian” countries and treating all foreigners as “subjects” of the Chinese emperor were both justifiable and legitimate in the eye of Chinese sovereign rulers (Yu 2009, p. 221). Within the conceptual framework of tianxia and huayi zhi bian , Jingjiao “political theology” needs to address two main issues: the sovereignty of daotong ( 道統 Chinese traditional orthodoxy) and the sovereignty of zhengtong ( 政統 political governance), i.e., tianming ( 天命 , the Heavenly mandate) and tianzi ( 天子 , the Son of Heaven-the emperor). Often, these two issues overlap with each other; they 3 Jingjiao, the particular branch of Christianity which reached China during the Tang Dynasty, used to be commonly rendered as Nestorianism in English. However, the appropriateness of the term has recently attracted wide discussion in the scholarly circle East and West. Due to the limitation of capacity and scope, this paper will use Jingjiao 景教 instead of Nestorian to designate this particular religion, as this is the self-reference of the Jingjiao-church in Tang-China which is literally known as the “Luminous Religion”. 4 Representative scholars who hold this opinion includes Xu Zongze 徐宗澤 , Yang Senfu 楊森富 , Zhu Qianzhi 朱謙之 , Jiang Wenhan 江文漢 etc. For general overview, ref. Ren Jiyu 任繼愈 ed. Ershi shiji Zhongguo xueshu dadian: Zongjiaoxue 20 世紀中國學術大典：宗教學 (Fujian jiaoyu chubanshe, (Ren 2002)), pp. 274–75; Weng Shaojun 翁紹軍 , Hanyu Jingjiao wendian quanshi 漢語景教文典詮釋 (Shanghai: Sanlian shuju, (Weng 1996)), pp. 9–10. 2 Religions 2019 , 10 , 551 are the two sides of the same coin. To a certain extent, Tang Jingjiao priests might have noticed the potential problems which would arise out of the adherence of the two. Therefore, in the first part of the text inscribed (hereafter Inscription) on the Monument for the Propagation of Daqin Jingjiao in China ( 大秦景教流行中國碑 , hereafter Xian Stele), an elaborated account of daotong (theology) is being given, while the second half of the Inscription is dedicated to the account of zhengtong (politics). The Inscription 5 reads: “But any (such) system without (the fostering of the sage (the sovereign), 6 does not attain its full development; and a sage (sovereign) without the aid of such a system does not become great” ( 惟道非聖不弘 , 聖非道不大 ) (Legge 1966, p. 9). “None but the Illustrious Religion is observed; none but virtuous rulers are appointed” ( 法非景不行 , 主非德不立 ) (p. 13). “There is nothing which the right principle cannot e ff ect; and whatever it e ff ects can be named. There is nothing which a sage (sovereign) cannot do; and whatever he does can be related” ( 道無不可 , 所可可名 ; 聖無不作 , 所作可述 ) (p. 19). In other words, “foreign religions” and “barbarian temples” do need the Tang sovereign’s patronage for their establishment in China. Even in such an underprivileged position, the Jingjiao clerics boldly declared the theological proposition of the Church that “politics cannot exist without the aid of religion” or “politics does need the support of religion”. Obviously, the Jingjiao-church had attempted to strike a balance between their adherence to the “(Religion) system” and the “Sage (sovereign)”. By implying the relationships to be mutual, Jingjiao in a way implied that both parties are “equal” in status. The aforementioned statement clearly shows that the most crucial problem Christianity encountered in Tang China is political theology in nature instead of a cultural-theology one. This issue remains unresolved until today. In fact, many of the challenges Jingjiao faced during the Tang Dynasty are not just religious or doctrinal in nature, such as huayi zhi bian which is partly ethnic in nature; jingong ( 進貢 , paying tribute) which is political in nature, and zhibai junqin ( 致拜君親 , worshipping the emperor and the ancestors) which is both cultural and religious in nature. As a “barbarian religion”, Jingjiao had no alternative but to accept the assigned identity and designated naming of their establishment as stipulated by the Tang court. The Church was under the full governance of the national administrative system almost in every aspect, this is to demonstrate the encompassing Tang sovereignty towards foreign subjects. In this regard, the establishment of Jingjiao in Tang China involved not only the issue of keeping proper boundaries but also the shift of identity. By adhering to the requirement of jingong upon arrival and fully submitting to the Tang governance after its establishment, Jingjiao was shaped according to the cultural imagination and perceptions of the sovereign Tang. The submissiveness of the Jingjiao-church in accepting the designation of name and identity granted by the Tang court is the recognition of the full sovereignty of the Tang. In traditional Chinese view, the power of state sovereignty is actualized through the integration of political and religious-cultural operations. Tang emperors turned this practice into a dominant political discourse to support royal legitimacy and the centralization of power. The history and destiny of the Jingjiao-church has clearly revealed the essentially subservient nature of Chinese political theology. In light of the stated observation, this paper intends to approach the issue of the down fall of Tang Jingjiao through the textual analysis of the Chinese Inscription on the Xian Stele, and takes this as a point of departure to observe the political dynamics between the Jingjiao establishment and the 5 For the Inscription text of the Xian Stele, James Legge’s English rendition is being used in this particular paragraph in order to stress the notion of “political sovereignty” in relation to the discussion of daotong 道統 and zhengtong . James Legge. The Nestorian monument of Hsî-an Fû in Shen-Hsî, China relating to the di ff usion of Christianity in China in the seventh and eighth centuries (London: Trübner, 1888, New York: Paragon, 1966) Citations refer to the Paragon edition. For the rest of the article, the translation and commentary produced by L. Eccles and S. N. C. Lieu: Stele on the Di ff usion of the Luminous Religion of Da Qin ( Rome ) in the Middle Kingdom 大秦景教流行碑 27 July 2016 is used, online at: https: // bit.ly / 2wdbNBv, accessed 14 April 2019. 6 Legge has aptly translated dao ( 道 , the Way) as the system, referring to the Illustrious Religion ( Jingjiao ) and the sheng ( 聖 , the sage), referring to the sovereign. 3 Religions 2019 , 10 , 551 Tang court so to prove the point that the intellectual history of Chinese Christianity is in a sense a comprehensive history of “political theology”. 7 2. Historical Background and Context For extended periods of time, the Inscription remains as the sole documentary reference to Jingjiao until the discovery of other major manuscripts such as the Daqin Jingjiao xuanyuan zhiben jin ( 大秦景教宣元至本經 ) 8 in the beginning of the 20th century. 9 Although these manuscripts provide a clearer picture as regards to the theology of Tang Jingjiao, the bulk has not contributed much in the aspects of revealing Jingjiao propagation and activities in the Tang Dynasty. 10 Therefore, the Inscription remains as most important historical archive in the intellectual history of Sino-Christianity. The discovery of the Xian Stele and the interest it has attracted from the scholarly circle is indeed a remarkable event in the studies of Tang Jingjiao. Fang Hao 方豪 (1910–1980) recognizes the Inscription as “The Champion of Chinese-Jingjiao text”. When the Xian Stele was first discovered, its authenticity had been once questioned. 11 Such suspicion was soon dismissed. Historian Chen Yuan considers that it is the starting point of the history of Chinese Christianity. It is indeed the most substantial primary source text of Chinese Christian theology. 12 7 Rong Xinjiang 榮新江 is of the opinion that, “It has been a while since the research on Tang Jingjiao comes out with any groundbreaking discovery, . . . Although the Stele with the inscription of ‘The Propagation of the Luminous Religion in Daqin’—the most important substantiate written record on Jingjiao—should be taken seriously, it has already been studied over a span of three hundred years, not to mention the recent publication of Paul Pelliot’s comprehensive commentary. One might wonder the justification of further study on this subject”. Quoted from “Introduction” ( 導言 ) in Tangdai zongjiao xinyang yu shehui 唐代宗教信仰與社會 (Shanghai: Cishu chubanshe, (Rong 2003)), p. 10. Contrary to Rong’s view, this paper attempts to o ff er an alternative approach to the interpretation of the Inscription. 8 Scholars have varied opinions regarding whether the total number of chapters is 8 or 9; depending on whether Xuanyuan zhibenjing 宣元至本經 and Xuanyuan benjing 宣元本經 should be treated as a single text or not. As for the authenticity of the text, Ref. Lin, Wushu 林悟殊 , Tangdai jingjiao zai yanjiu 唐代景教再研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, (Lin 2003a)). Regarding the actual number of Jingjiao canons, Li (1628) Zhizhao 李之藻 (1571–1630) stated in the opening paragraph of Tianxue chuhan 天學初函 that quite a substantial number of these Jingjiao canons had been translated during Tang period. However, all of these texts were being collected into the anthology of Beiye Cang 貝葉藏 , and therefore not properly categorized. Li further stated that the 27 Books of translated scriptural texts from Zhenguan 貞觀 period (627–649) might still be found in other Buddhist anthologies. Jingjing 景淨 (a Jingjiao Monk) was said to have translated 30 Books of Jingjiao Scriptures and that he was even being invited to translate Buddhist sutras. However, Jing unfamiliarity with Sanskrit was later being ridiculed.Scholars have varied opinions regarding whether the total number of chapters is 8 or 9; depending on whether Xuanyuan zhibenjing 宣元至本經 and Xuanyuan benjing 宣元本經 should be treated as a single text or not. As for the authenticity of the text, Ref. Lin, Wushu 林悟殊 , Tangdai jingjiao zai yanjiu 唐代景教再研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, (Lin 2003a). Regarding the actual number of Jingjiao canons, Li (1628) Zhizhao 李之藻 (1571–1630) stated in the opening paragraph of Tianxue chuhan 天學初函 that quite a substantial number of these Jingjiao canons had been translated during Tang period. However, all of these texts were being collected into the anthology of Beiye Cang 貝葉藏 , and therefore not properly categorized. Li further stated that the 27 Books of translated scriptural texts from Zhenguan 貞觀 period (627–649) might still be found in other Buddhist anthologies. Jingjing 景淨 (a Jingjiao Monk) was said to have translated 30 Books of Jingjiao Scriptures and that he was even being invited to translate Buddhist sutras. However, Jing unfamiliarity with Sanskrit was later being ridiculed. 9 (Deeg 2006, pp. 92-93). 10 The research on Jingjiao is far from seeing its end. Scholars around the world are showing greater interest in the studies of Jingjiao than the Chinese academics. The Monumenta Serica Institute in Salzburg, Germany holds special international conference regarding this topic triennially. The Initial Conference: “Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia” was held in 2003, followed by “Research on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia” in 2006. In China, research has been reactivated after the new discovery of the Luoyang jingchuang 洛陽經幢 . See Ge Chengyong 葛承雍 ed. Jingjiao yizhen —Luoyang xinchu Tangdai Jingjiao jingchuang yanjiu 景教遺珍 — 洛陽新出唐代景教經幢研究 (Beijing: Beijing Wenwu chubanshe, (Ge 2009)). Apart from that, an important breakthrough has been attained in the research of Yuan Jingjiao stele inscriptioninscriptions. Ref. Niu Ruji 牛汝極 , Shizi lianhua —Zhongguo Yuandai Xuliya wen Jingjiao bei wenxian yanjiu 十字蓮花 — 中國元代敘利亞文景教碑文獻研究 (Shanghai: Guji chubanshe, (Niu 2009)). 11 For detail discussion on the queries, Ref. Erica C.D. Hunter (2010). “Syriac Onomastica in the Xian Fu Inscriptions”. Parole de l'Orient 35: 357–69. 12 The first person who has annotated the Xian Stele Inscription is the Portuguese Jesuit Emmanuel Diaz Jr. (1574–1659). Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo beisong zhengquan 景教流行中國碑頌正詮 was inscribed in the 17th year of Ming Chongzhen 明崇禎 (1644 A.D). The text was later compiled into Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian xubian 天主教東傳文獻續編 (Taibei: Taiwan Xuesheng shuju, (Diaz 1966)). One of the earliest translated versions (the Shaanxi 陝西 version) of the Inscription was done by the Italian Jesuit Missionary Nicolas Trigault (1577–1628) with the help of Wang Zheng 王徵 (1571–1644) and Zhang Xunfang 張纁芳 . Another early translated version (The Hangzhou 杭州 version) was done by the Portuguese Jesuit Missionary Alvaro de Semedo (1585–1658), collected in his work Da Zhongguo zhi 大中國志 . It is noteworthy that Li Zhizao 李之藻 has 4 Religions 2019 , 10 , 551 Why was the Xian Stele installed in the first place? It is widely recognized as a “monument” ( 碑 ) which commemorates certain occasion or event, but early Chinese Scholar Feng Chengjun 馮承鈞 (1887–1946) believes that it is a tombstone instead (Feng 1931, p. 69). 13 Feng contends that Jingjing 景淨 (also known as Adam, a Jingjiao priest) ordered the Xian Stele to be made in order to commemorate and give credits to the merits and works of Yisi 伊斯 (Iazedboujid): “ . . . to engrave a grand tablet, in order to set forth a eulogy of such great deeds . . . ” ( 願刻洪碑 , 以揚休烈 ) (Eccles and Lieu 2016, p. 7). 14 However, Paul Pelliot disagrees with this notion. Instead, Pelliot contends that the stele was “simply” set up during one of the annual gathering banquets of Jingjiao clerics for the purpose of documenting the history of Jingjiao in China. However, the events inscribed on the Xian Stele covers a span of over 150 years of Jingjiao history in China, ranging from the ninth year of Tang Zhenguan 貞觀 (635 CE) when Alouben arrived in the imperial capital Chang’an till the date when the stele was set up in the second year of Tang Jianzhong 建中 (781 CE) under Dezhong’s 德宗 (742–805 CE) reign. From this perspective, the installation of the stele and its occasion should not be taken lightly. As one among the “three barbarian religions”, the Jingjiao-church is the only one which had received such a favor, the reason behind needs to be further investigated. In Chinese history, the Tang Dynasty is one of the extra-sensitive periods in regard to the relationships between politics and religion. In this context, the favoritism received by Jingjiao is exceptional and almost impossible without the patronage of the Tang court. Jingjiao indeed acquired the legitimacy of its establishment in China under the sovereign recognition of the Tang court. Such an insight should not be ignored by those who are acquainted with the complicated relationships between politics and religion in Tang China. Therefore, the occasion of installing the stele should be viewed as a more solemn and significant event than what has been suggested by Pelliot. Nevertheless, as the most important text of Jingjiao, the Inscription has fully revealed that the installation of the Xian Stele was the result of an important military operation by the Tang court to suppress the An-Shi Rebellion ( 安史之亂 ) in which the prominent Jingjiao priest Yisi made a tremendous contribution. The whole a ff air therefore is political in nature. According to the Inscription, Yisi “ . . . was the Duke’s right-hand man (lit. ‘claw and fang’) and was the eyes and ears for the army” ( 為公爪牙 , 作軍耳目 ) (Ibid., p. 6). Therefore, the imperial Tang court conferred to Yisi a purple priestly gown. On top of that, Emperor Suzong ( 肅宗 ) further rewarded Yisi by granting him the favor of “rebuilt the Luminous temples in Lingwu and four other commanderies” 15 ( 於靈武等五郡 , 重立景寺 ) (Ibid., p. 5). Based on Yisi merits, Jingjiao finally gained the precious opportunity to rea ffi rm played a significant role in influencing Alvaro de Semedo’s study and translation of the Inscription. There is a speculation on whether Li is in fact the real author of this work attributed to Emmanuel Diaz. Fang Hao 方豪 has denied this possibility. According to Emmanuel Diaz, when the Xian Stele Inscription was first discovered, Li commented that “From now on, people in China can no longer blame the holy teaching for arriving so late! The sages in the past have started the cause, and it has flourished within the imperial court and among the commoners. They have all glorified the teaching. Moreover, the believers of such great teachings are still existing right here and right now”. Ref. “Preface” to Tang Jingjiaobei Song Zhengquan 唐景教碑頌正詮 in Xu Zongze ed. 徐宗澤 Ming Qing jian Yesu huishi yizhe tiyao 明清間耶穌會士譯著提要 (Shanghai shudian chubanshe, (Diaz 2006)), p. 178. After Li studied the Inscription, he commented, “It is surprising to know that this religion already existed in China since 990 years ago”. Ref. Li Zhizao 李之藻 , “Du Jingjiaobei Shu Hou” 讀景教碑書後 , in Tianxue Chuhan 天學初函 (Taibei: Taiwan Xuesheng Shuju, (Li 1965)). In Tang Huiyao 唐會要 Vol. 49 the followings are recorded: “Alouben” 阿羅本 , “establishing a “temple” in Yi-Ning Ward 義寧坊建寺 ” “Persian sutras and religion 波斯經教 ” and “Daqin Temple 大秦寺 ”. See Xu Zongze ed. 徐宗澤 Zhongguo Tianzhujiao Chuanjiaoshi Gailun 中國天主教傳教史概論 , (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, (Xu 1992)), pp. 76–78. 13 Later Chinese scholarship considers Feng’s statement to be inaccurate. See Wu Changshing 吳昶興 , Zhenchang zhidao ： Tangdai Jidujiao lishi yu wenxian yanjiu 真常之道：唐代基督教歷史與文獻研 (Taiwan Jidujiao wenyi chubanshe, (Wu 2015)), pp. 46–47. 14 From this point onwards, unless otherwise mentioned, the Eccles and Lieu English translation text will be consistently used for the contemporariness of language. (Ref. Footnote No. 5). 15 It is widely acknowledged that Yisi 伊斯 (Iazedboujid) is a doctor as well. His medical expertise is described as “the best among those in the three dynasties and good in treating all illness”. He is a well praised philanthropist who “fed the hungry; clothed the naked; cured the sick; and buried the dead”. Iazedboujid was probably a coadjutor bishop, therefore not an ordinary priests. As for his political standing, Iazedboujid survived three Tang emperors and was a close ally of Guo Ziyi 郭子儀 . See Duan Qing 段晴 . “Tangdai Daqinsi yu Jingjiaoseng xinshi” 唐代大秦寺與景教僧新釋 , in Rong Xinjiang 榮新江 ed. Tangdai zongjiao xinyang yu shehui 唐代宗教信仰與社會 (Shanghai: Cishu chubanshe, (Duan 2003)), pp. 463–66. 5 Religions 2019 , 10 , 551 its establishment, and to recount the favorable treatments from a list of successive Tang emperors, meanwhile also not forgetting to praise the virtuous rule of the stated emperors. In view of this, the Inscription has on one hand expounded the doctrines and theological belief of Jingjiao from its very beginning, but also recounted over 150 years of its history. The purpose was obviously to “legitimatize” the status of Jingjiao-church establishment in Tang history. From the ninth year of Zhenguan to the fifth year of Huichang 會昌 (845 CE), the Jinjiao-church was at the pinnacle of its establishment for a period of nearly 200 years. However, this does not mean that the church had not faced any challenges during this period of time. The Tang Jingjiao establishment had at least undergone three critical moments concerning its establishment during the stated period. When Tang Wuzong’s 武宗 (814–846 CE) suppression of the Buddhist establishments reached its climax in the fifth year of Huichang, Jingjiao was also not exempted from this ordeal and su ff ered from the impact of this operation. All the Jingjiao monasteries were being destroyed, and the believers were either forced to renounce their faith or retreated to remote borderlands of Tang territories. Since then the Jingjiao-church was detached from the politics of the Tang Dynasty. All the Jingjiao foreign missionaries were expelled and Tang Jingjiao seemingly never recovered from this heavy blow. Over two centuries of missionary work had ended up pathetically described by the poet Yang Yunyi 楊雲翼 when he visited the Daqin Temple: “The temple is collapsed; only the ruins remain. All the people had left; the place is laid waste” ( 寺廢基空在，人歸地自閑 ). 16 Chinese scholars with “ecclesiastic background” have always attributed the fall or failure of Jingjiao mission in China to its over-emphasis on indigenization (Song 1978, p. 41; Fang 1983, p. 424). This school argues that on one hand, the Jingjiao priests appropriated too much of the Buddhist and Taoist terminology in translating the Jingjiao canons, and therefore compromises in their theological stance (Yang 1968). On the other hand, the Jingjiao establishment depended too heavily on the patronage of the Tang court, and therefore subjected the Church’s autonomy to the mercy of the Tang sovereign (Yang 1968; Zhu 1993; Zhu 2009). 17 From the perspective of historical context, the first cause as regard to the fall of Jingjiao seems to be a misjudgment due to the lack of historical insights. Those who hold this opinion have overlooked the social-political setting of the Tang Dynasty where the Jingjiao priests had little other option but to appropriate existing Buddhist and Taoist terminology in their translation of scriptures. As a foreign religion which entering Tang China, it is quite feasible that Jingjiao doctrines and theological teachings would first undergo a process of language and cultural appropriation. The canons needed to be rendered into local language and dictions familiar to the locals in order to propagate. When Jingjiao founders first settled in Tang China, the domineering religious terminology and dictions were those of the Buddhism and Taoism. If the pioneering Jingjiao priests wished to propagate their faith in Tang China, they would have had no other alternatives but to appropriate the terminology used by the two established religions in the rendition of Jingjiao canons and liturgies. Unless the initial Jingjiao establishment only intended to serve the Tang Assyrian community exclusively, the clerical group would have needed to appropriate the existing local religions for their translation endeavor. Since the Chinese Republic era, Chinese intellectuals have been deeply concerned about the issue of so call “Christianity indigenization” (or “practicality” as what Cai Hongsheng 蔡鴻生 refers to). They have deemed the Tang Jingjiao clerics’ appropriation exercise as erroneous and a gesture of compromise to the local beliefs, especially to Buddhism in particular. What the “indigenous” school in the past overlooked is the fact that their interpretation is anachronistic. Tang Jingjiao clerics did not enjoy the 16 Yang, Yunyi (2019), Daqingshi in Qingding Siku quanshu 欽定四庫全書 , digital version available at Ctext Repository, Url: https: // ctext.org / wiki.pl?if = en&chapter = 779959 (accessed on 16 April 2019). 17 For an overview of the representative Chinese scholars who hold this view, see Sun Shangyang 孫揚 , N. Standaert 鐘鳴旦 , 1840 nianqian de Zhongguo Jidujiao 1840 年前的中國基督教 (Xueyuan chubanshe, (Sun and Standaert 2004)), pp. 42–46; Gu Weimin 顧衛民 Jidujiao yu jindai Zhongguo shehui 基督教與近代中國社會 (Shanghai renmin chubanshe, (Gu 2010)), pp. 23–24. For linguistic discussion, refer to Nie Zhijun 聶志軍 , Tangdai Jingjiao wenxian ciyu yanjiu 唐代景教文獻詞語研究 (Hunan renmin chubanshe, (Nie 2010)). 6 Religions 2019 , 10 , 551 many advantages and benefits of multi-languages learning in a modern society. The appropriation of local religions terminology seemed to be the most natural and reasonable decision for them. At least such an adaptation indeed provided room for Jingjiao to thrive under the prevailing mainstream Tang discourse of huahu jingshuo 化胡經說 [Laozi 18 has converted the barbarians]. Therefore, the root cause of the downfall of Jingjiao is more political than cultural in nature. Scholars, with or without an “ecclesiastic background”, who contend that the perishing of Tang Jingjiao from an appropriation perspective have overlooked the context of political theology. 19 In Tang history, religion and politics were inseparable. Therefore, religious establishments must serve the purpose of a political end i.e., to pacify the people and maintain the stability of the social structure. 20 In other words, as far as the Tang court was concerned, religious institutions were only allowed when the institutions served the political agenda of its governance. Jingjiao was obviously not exempted from this governing principle. The notion is presented in the stele inscription: Though elevated he (Emperor Dezhong) is humble and because of his inner tranquility he is merciful and rescues multitudes from misery, he bestows blessings on all around. The cultivation of our doctrine (Illustrious Religion) gained a strong basis by which its influence was gradually advanced. If the winds and rains come at the right season, the world will be peaceful; people will be reasonable, the creatures will be clean; the living will be prosperous, and the dead will be at peace. When thoughts echo their appropriate response, a ff ections will be free, and the eyes will be sincere; such is the laudable condition which our Luminous Religion la